Summary:In this article, the idea is brought forth that comparing different state's standardized test scores is almost pointless because all states have different curriculum and different tests. This began with the No Child Left Behind legislation, where the goal of "proficiency" in reading and math was established for all students by 2014. As great as this idea sounds, as the article points out, it also allows each state to define "proficient", making it difficult to compare the scores in different states. Many states use extremely different curricula, especially in the area of science. For example, in some southern areas of the country, Creationism is taught in the sciences, meaning that they would have extremely different scientific knowledge than the rest of the country. The newest idea to come was in 2011 with the Common Core Standards in all major subject areas. While this will even the playing field a bit more, by putting all states standards at the same benchmark, this will not be totally accurate however until all states adopt the same tests. Reaction: This article focuses on the biggest problem in understanding what proficiency means; it had no set meaning until the common core standards. Until 2011, there was no national benchmark for proficiency. Still even though a new standard has been adopted, what does this really mean when the assessments given are different? My reaction to this is that it is entirely useless to set a national standard if all that it leads to is labeling poor schools as poor performing without a standard assessment. Although I do not agree with "teaching to the test", I do think that if it is how schools are going to be judged, the assessments must be uniform, and must cover topics that all students must learn. If this is what the country is placing as the highest indicator of knowledge, the students need to be taught this specific, information in order to have a fighting chance at success. Stansfield, William D. “Educational Curriculum Standards & Standardized Educational Tests: Comparing Apples & Oranges?” The American Biology Teacher 73.7 (2011): 389–393. Web. 19 Nov. 2012. Summary Article: “National Education Standards.”Summary: This article dissects the issue of national and state testing further. The idea that the curricula for different states would be identical is unrealistic and overbearing, according to many of the people cited in this article. setting state standards however, does seem to be an agreeable area in testing. As of now, 49 of the 50 states have adopted, or are planning to impose new statewide standards. Although these curricula are not uniform, the trend seems to show that states who are pushing higher standards are performing better on the national assessment, the NAEP. One problem with implementing these standards is that many see it as losing local control to the larger governmental forces. Another issue discussed is that though there are new standards, the tests are not aligned with what is being taught to students. National standards are seen by some as a way to "measure up" students with others in the country and this idea is slowly growing on states. Since it is right now nearly impossible to mark proficiency from one state to another, the notion if national assessments is slowly becoming more accepted by parents and professionals who want to compare their state to others. Others however, still agree that standardized testing as a whole is not able to gauge student achievement since so many bright students just do not test well in this format. For this, some critics of testing would suggest a more open approach to looking at curricula and projects of students across the country than relying on multiple choice testing. Reaction: While reading this specific article, I found that I was agreeing more and more with what was being said. The idea of national standards and tests, while maybe helpful to gauging achievement across state lines, is unrealistic and is in fact a tad overbearing. I think that setting state standards AND curricula that correspond is the next best thing. There is however still a need to be able to compare students in different states. For this, i think that while state standards should not be identical, there should be some areas of content that are taught across the country, and this is what should be taught. For example, not all students should have to read the same exact books in 7th grade they should however, learn the same ideas about writing and understand the different aspect of it such as tone, mood, etc. I may be biased because this is the way that I was taught through the IB curriculum and I do feel that this type of learning is the most successful.
Kathy Koch. “National Education Standards.” CQ Researcher by CQ Press. 14 May 1999. Web. 25 Nov. 2012.
Analysis Article:
Students Ace State Tests, but Earn D’s From U.S.”
Summary:
This article focuses on the fact that many of the states seem to be "low-balling" their standards fr proficiency in order to get around the No Child Left Behind mandates. This is my biggest problem with the legislation that states that all states can make their own benchmark for proficiency. This means that states where students are extremely under-proficient will lower their own standards, making it appear as if the students are performing very well, only to be proven false on the NAEP. For example, in Alabama 83% of the students in fourth grade scored at or above proficiency on the statewide tests.Only 22% of these same kids however, showed proficiency on the national exam. This easy state testing, while allowing the schools to avoid sanctions, is only making students and families feel that they are much more prepared than they actually are. With no set level for proficiency, what is the point of even putting stock in it? For some states such as South Carolina which set high standards for their students in hopes that the rest of the country would too, their ambitions will only lead to sanctions if they cannot meet these high standards in 8 years. From this example, it is very unlikely that any other states will raise their own standards for fear of backlash from the national government. Reaction:
My biggest fear with these mismatched standards is illustrated in this article. States are not allowing growth for their students by assessing them accurately. While most states "proficiency" ratings are a stretch from the national standards, it seems that they are aligned closely to the national standards of basic comprehension. This makes me wonder: are states underselling their students, or does the country have unrealistic expectations? While it is not clear which standards are most realistic, it would seem that they have to meet someplace in the middle. In order to truly get a picture of where American students fall amongst each other, the standards by which they are judged must be equal.
Dillon, Sam. “Students Ace State Tests, but Earn D’s From U.S.” The New York Times 26 Nov. 2005. Web. 25 Nov. 2012.
Editorial: " How Well Are They Really Doing"
Summary:
This editorial examines the bad outcomes that can stem from the "low-level" state testing that is done in order to raise exam scores. The article takes critical aim at states that are "making a mockery" of the provision that allows each state to set their own standards. Many states, it argues, change their tests from year to year so that they can be seen as making progress when just the opposite may actually be true. While most of these states that boast high test scores do poorly on the NAEP, they refuse to replace their tests saying that tests like the NAEP do not measure proficiency at the state's level. What is more true, is that most states have very low standards, especially in math and science. Research has concluded that in these subjects, the state assessments do not reach high-level learning. More than this, the author fears that teachers are lowering their own teaching standards in order to meet the state tests. This article argues that NAEP should offer free tests to states who agree to use the higher standards, thus showcasing the states with low expectations. Reaction: I agree with parts of this editorial, especially those that suggest that states should not be able to set extremely low standards. To fix this, one suggestion that I would have is to allow states to create their own standards unless the students are far below the national level. At this point, I would suggest that the NAEP free tests be offered to supplement the state's assessments. I think that the reason for these low standards is not because the states want to hurt the students, but are instead out of fear that they will be harshly sanctioned by standards that they have no chance at meeting. For this reason, I think that there should be less scrutiny and blame placed on the teachers, and more incentives to those who can achieve the national level of proficiency. “How Well Are They Really Doing?” The New York Times 12 Aug. 2008. Web. 26 Nov. 2012.
Overall Reaction to Your Research
My research has lead me to the conclusion that there is a vast discrepancy between state and national standards. It has also lead me to the sad realization that many states are lowering their standards out of fear of recourse if the rigorous NAEP standards are not met. Many states perform exceptionally well according to the standards that they set for themselves, but fall frighteningly short of those set by the NAEP exams. Because of these low standards, the United States is falling far behind other developed countries like China. Though I understand both sides of the argument, there has to be some middle ground that sets politics aside and puts students first. Through reading many different views and opinions, I have concluded that most agree that what we are doing now is not working. Because of this, I feel that it would be most beneficial to have, as part of the common core standards, universal subjects and information that all students must be taught, and then tested on. I do not think that all curricula should be identical by any means. I do however, think that there are certain criteria that must be met by all students so that they may be considered proficient.
Relevance in Rhode Island Schools
How does what you learned in your research inform efforts to reform schools in Rhode Island?
What I learned from my research is that as school's try to reform, standardized tests are important to the cause. I see the trends of many states in administering easy tests to students in order to create the facade of progression as only detrimental to their education. I believe that Rhode Island as a state should adopt curricula that have some emphasis on the subjects covered in more difficult standardized testing and work towards teaching these harder concepts and not watered down lessons that only teach to the low standards of state tests.
Relevance to Charter Schools
This topic is extremely relevant to the creation of charter schools, in fact it is the force behind the recent push to create more and more charter schools in the United States. When state standards are not met, schools are put on a watch, and one of the options is to allow a charter school to replace the school. If states did raise their standards to the national level, currently, many more schools would fall short. Because of this, even more charter schools would be created under the intention of raising these state scores to the national level. The idea of charter schools is that they would push students to a higher level and ask more of them than a traditional public school. While this is great, not all students would be going to these new charter schools and many of the students left in public schools would be those whose parents made no effort to put them into a charter school. If this happens, the public school system as we know it would collapse and be essentially unable to meet these new standards set by charter schools which often have more resources or more motivated parents and students.
Author: Alexa Levesque
Scholarly Journal: "Educational Curriculum Standards & Standardized Educational Tests: Comparing Apples & Oranges?”
Summary:In this article, the idea is brought forth that comparing different state's standardized test scores is almost pointless because all states have different curriculum and different tests. This began with the No Child Left Behind legislation, where the goal of "proficiency" in reading and math was established for all students by 2014. As great as this idea sounds, as the article points out, it also allows each state to define "proficient", making it difficult to compare the scores in different states. Many states use extremely different curricula, especially in the area of science. For example, in some southern areas of the country, Creationism is taught in the sciences, meaning that they would have extremely different scientific knowledge than the rest of the country. The newest idea to come was in 2011 with the Common Core Standards in all major subject areas. While this will even the playing field a bit more, by putting all states standards at the same benchmark, this will not be totally accurate however until all states adopt the same tests.Reaction:
This article focuses on the biggest problem in understanding what proficiency means; it had no set meaning until the common core standards. Until 2011, there was no national benchmark for proficiency. Still even though a new standard has been adopted, what does this really mean when the assessments given are different? My reaction to this is that it is entirely useless to set a national standard if all that it leads to is labeling poor schools as poor performing without a standard assessment. Although I do not agree with "teaching to the test", I do think that if it is how schools are going to be judged, the assessments must be uniform, and must cover topics that all students must learn. If this is what the country is placing as the highest indicator of knowledge, the students need to be taught this specific, information in order to have a fighting chance at success.
Stansfield, William D. “Educational Curriculum Standards & Standardized Educational Tests: Comparing Apples & Oranges?” The American Biology Teacher 73.7 (2011): 389–393. Web. 19 Nov. 2012.
Summary Article: “National Education Standards.”Summary:
This article dissects the issue of national and state testing further. The idea that the curricula for different states would be identical is unrealistic and overbearing, according to many of the people cited in this article. setting state standards however, does seem to be an agreeable area in testing. As of now, 49 of the 50 states have adopted, or are planning to impose new statewide standards. Although these curricula are not uniform, the trend seems to show that states who are pushing higher standards are performing better on the national assessment, the NAEP. One problem with implementing these standards is that many see it as losing local control to the larger governmental forces. Another issue discussed is that though there are new standards, the tests are not aligned with what is being taught to students.
National standards are seen by some as a way to "measure up" students with others in the country and this idea is slowly growing on states. Since it is right now nearly impossible to mark proficiency from one state to another, the notion if national assessments is slowly becoming more accepted by parents and professionals who want to compare their state to others. Others however, still agree that standardized testing as a whole is not able to gauge student achievement since so many bright students just do not test well in this format. For this, some critics of testing would suggest a more open approach to looking at curricula and projects of students across the country than relying on multiple choice testing.
Reaction:
While reading this specific article, I found that I was agreeing more and more with what was being said. The idea of national standards and tests, while maybe helpful to gauging achievement across state lines, is unrealistic and is in fact a tad overbearing. I think that setting state standards AND curricula that correspond is the next best thing. There is however still a need to be able to compare students in different states. For this, i think that while state standards should not be identical, there should be some areas of content that are taught across the country, and this is what should be taught. For example, not all students should have to read the same exact books in 7th grade they should however, learn the same ideas about writing and understand the different aspect of it such as tone, mood, etc. I may be biased because this is the way that I was taught through the IB curriculum and I do feel that this type of learning is the most successful.
Kathy Koch. “National Education Standards.” CQ Researcher by CQ Press. 14 May 1999. Web. 25 Nov. 2012.
Analysis Article:
Students Ace State Tests, but Earn D’s From U.S.”Summary:
This article focuses on the fact that many of the states seem to be "low-balling" their standards fr proficiency in order to get around the No Child Left Behind mandates. This is my biggest problem with the legislation that states that all states can make their own benchmark for proficiency. This means that states where students are extremely under-proficient will lower their own standards, making it appear as if the students are performing very well, only to be proven false on the NAEP. For example, in Alabama 83% of the students in fourth grade scored at or above proficiency on the statewide tests.Only 22% of these same kids however, showed proficiency on the national exam. This easy state testing, while allowing the schools to avoid sanctions, is only making students and families feel that they are much more prepared than they actually are. With no set level for proficiency, what is the point of even putting stock in it? For some states such as South Carolina which set high standards for their students in hopes that the rest of the country would too, their ambitions will only lead to sanctions if they cannot meet these high standards in 8 years. From this example, it is very unlikely that any other states will raise their own standards for fear of backlash from the national government.Reaction:
My biggest fear with these mismatched standards is illustrated in this article. States are not allowing growth for their students by assessing them accurately. While most states "proficiency" ratings are a stretch from the national standards, it seems that they are aligned closely to the national standards of basic comprehension. This makes me wonder: are states underselling their students, or does the country have unrealistic expectations? While it is not clear which standards are most realistic, it would seem that they have to meet someplace in the middle. In order to truly get a picture of where American students fall amongst each other, the standards by which they are judged must be equal.
Dillon, Sam. “Students Ace State Tests, but Earn D’s From U.S.” The New York Times 26 Nov. 2005. Web. 25 Nov. 2012.
Editorial: " How Well Are They Really Doing"
Summary:
This editorial examines the bad outcomes that can stem from the "low-level" state testing that is done in order to raise exam scores. The article takes critical aim at states that are "making a mockery" of the provision that allows each state to set their own standards. Many states, it argues, change their tests from year to year so that they can be seen as making progress when just the opposite may actually be true. While most of these states that boast high test scores do poorly on the NAEP, they refuse to replace their tests saying that tests like the NAEP do not measure proficiency at the state's level. What is more true, is that most states have very low standards, especially in math and science. Research has concluded that in these subjects, the state assessments do not reach high-level learning. More than this, the author fears that teachers are lowering their own teaching standards in order to meet the state tests. This article argues that NAEP should offer free tests to states who agree to use the higher standards, thus showcasing the states with low expectations.Reaction:
I agree with parts of this editorial, especially those that suggest that states should not be able to set extremely low standards. To fix this, one suggestion that I would have is to allow states to create their own standards unless the students are far below the national level. At this point, I would suggest that the NAEP free tests be offered to supplement the state's assessments. I think that the reason for these low standards is not because the states want to hurt the students, but are instead out of fear that they will be harshly sanctioned by standards that they have no chance at meeting. For this reason, I think that there should be less scrutiny and blame placed on the teachers, and more incentives to those who can achieve the national level of proficiency.
“How Well Are They Really Doing?” The New York Times 12 Aug. 2008. Web. 26 Nov. 2012.
Overall Reaction to Your Research
My research has lead me to the conclusion that there is a vast discrepancy between state and national standards. It has also lead me to the sad realization that many states are lowering their standards out of fear of recourse if the rigorous NAEP standards are not met. Many states perform exceptionally well according to the standards that they set for themselves, but fall frighteningly short of those set by the NAEP exams. Because of these low standards, the United States is falling far behind other developed countries like China. Though I understand both sides of the argument, there has to be some middle ground that sets politics aside and puts students first. Through reading many different views and opinions, I have concluded that most agree that what we are doing now is not working. Because of this, I feel that it would be most beneficial to have, as part of the common core standards, universal subjects and information that all students must be taught, and then tested on. I do not think that all curricula should be identical by any means. I do however, think that there are certain criteria that must be met by all students so that they may be considered proficient.Relevance in Rhode Island Schools
How does what you learned in your research inform efforts to reform schools in Rhode Island?What I learned from my research is that as school's try to reform, standardized tests are important to the cause. I see the trends of many states in administering easy tests to students in order to create the facade of progression as only detrimental to their education. I believe that Rhode Island as a state should adopt curricula that have some emphasis on the subjects covered in more difficult standardized testing and work towards teaching these harder concepts and not watered down lessons that only teach to the low standards of state tests.
Relevance to Charter Schools
This topic is extremely relevant to the creation of charter schools, in fact it is the force behind the recent push to create more and more charter schools in the United States. When state standards are not met, schools are put on a watch, and one of the options is to allow a charter school to replace the school. If states did raise their standards to the national level, currently, many more schools would fall short. Because of this, even more charter schools would be created under the intention of raising these state scores to the national level. The idea of charter schools is that they would push students to a higher level and ask more of them than a traditional public school. While this is great, not all students would be going to these new charter schools and many of the students left in public schools would be those whose parents made no effort to put them into a charter school. If this happens, the public school system as we know it would collapse and be essentially unable to meet these new standards set by charter schools which often have more resources or more motivated parents and students.